mil] CRITICISMS ON " THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES." 30!) 



the observation of the general order and harmony which 

 pervade inorganic nature, would lead us to anticipate a 

 similar order and harmony in the organic world. And 

 this is no doubt true, but it by no means follows that 

 the particular order and harmony observed among them 

 should be that which we see. Surely the stripes of dun 

 horses, and the teeth of the foetal Balcena, are not ex- 

 plained by the " existence of general laws of Nature." 

 Mr. Darwin endeavours to explain the exact order of 

 organic nature which exists ; not the mere fact that 

 there is some order. 



And with regard to the existence of a natural system 

 of minerals ; the obvious reply is that there may be a 

 natural classification of any objects — of stones on a sea- 

 beach, or of works of art.; a natural classification being 

 simply an assemblage of objects in groups, so as to 

 express their most important and fundamental re- 

 semblances and differences. No doubt Mr. Darwin be- 

 lieves that those resemblances and differences upon 

 which our natural systems or classifications of animals 

 and plants are based, are resemblances and differences 

 which have been produced genetically, but we can dis- 

 cover no reason for supposing that he denies the existence 

 of natural classifications of other kinds. 



And, after all, is it quite so certain that a genetic 

 relation may not underlie the classification of minerals \ 

 The inorganic world has not always been what we see 

 it. It has certainly had its metamorphoses, and, very 

 probably, a long " Entwickelungsgeschichte ; out of a 

 nebular blastema. Who knows how far that amount 

 of likeness among sets of minerals, in virtue of which 

 they are now grouped into families and orders, may 

 not be the expression of the common conditions to 

 which that particular patch of nebulous fog, which may 

 have been constituted by their atoms, and of which 



